this is patently not true. It would do to remember that we are currently in version 2.x of the US, the US was started, mostly by the same framers, not with that idea of suppressing universal democracy (articles of confederation), and then they rolled back a tad bit on democracy (constituion).
Articles of confederation vs. constitution related to compact between the states vs the strength of the federal government. Most of the people who signed the decl. of independence owned slaves or were lawyers for people who do. I'll grant maybe a few more people in the constitutional convention might not have been slave holders.
However, it would be good to recall that during the era of good feelings, a huge number of presidents were slave holders from Virginia. That's who held the balance of power in the country. The constitution itself was a compromise over slavery, modeled after English government (house/senate -> commons/lords, pres/vice pres -> king/heir apparent). Voters were landed white male adults, senators were elected indirectly by the states, as was the president (and still is though we have papered over it!). Supreme court judges were given life terms to enable disruption from below to be smoothed out by prior appointments.
The whole idea of the country was to guarantee rights to the upper class and place the country under new management and diffuse lower class energy via grants of land in westward expansion. The "genius" of the constitution became apparent when the entire thing broke down only ~70 years later in a bloodbath over the issue, slavery, they papered over at the convention which was a direct affront to the rhetoric of the revolution.
By modern standards, we view their actions as morally wrong. Owning slaves is morally wrong. Only permitting white males to vote is morally wrong.
Yet, we also forget that the world then was not like the world today. Who received comprehensive education back then, the kind needed to run states and countries? Typically, the rich, and within that, men. The inequalities of the world in those times were immense and could not be mended in even one generation. Liberal countries such as USA fought against the powerful forces of British imperialism, with the promise of a better tomorrow for all citizens, however long that takes.
>The constitution itself was a compromise over slavery
If you've ever tried to make significant change in an organization of any type and size (including government), you MUST take inertia into account. What you claim was willful choice, I claim was inertia. Slavery was not banned in the Constitution because a few Southern states would have refused to sign it, their claim being such action would render economic devastation. The very day it became possible, the importation of slaves was federally prohibited by Jefferson. As slavery became increasingly restricted by the federal, the southern states dug in their heels and refused to change their labor practices. The eventual Civil War was one of economics, with the general population heavily propagandized by those wealthy slaveowners wanting to preserve their livelihood.
>diffuse lower class energy via grants of land in westward expansion
Your analysis is overly simplistic. Those grants of land to lower-class citizens ensured the new Western lands would be worked by citizens. It was great opportunity many lower-class citizens jumped on, especially those who didn't own land before. By relocating to a smaller community, a lower-class citizen became immediately more influential in their local community by numbers alone. Yes, it diffuses that energy, but that's not inherently bad. In different terms, I see that decentralization as an intentional, value-adding feature, not an unintentional bug.
> Yet, we also forget that the world then was not like the world today.
False. Contemporary preachers were regularly commenting that slavers were going to hell. They didn't have a different morality, just different economic incentives (i.e. they thought they could get away with it). Luminaries such as Jefferson even expressed that slavery was wrong, though he didn't actually free his slaves during his lifetime. Show respect for people of the past, they weren't stupid. It wasn't even that far into the future that the slavery abolition movement got going in other countries such as the UK.
> Those grants of land to lower-class citizens ensured the new Western lands would be worked by citizens.
The land was Native American land and this was only achieved via genocidal means.
>They didn't have a different morality, just different economic incentives (i.e. they thought they could get away with it).
Exactly, slavery was a significant economic factor in the world back then. It is no longer a significant economic factor in the world today. Also, don't think that preachers speak their message without understanding the nature of their congregation. The preacher chooses a message they feel the congregation should hear. Rare is the sermon which chastises the economic means of that church body's membership.
>The land was Native American land and this was only achieved via genocidal means.
Native American tribes were weakened by disease, defeated by technology, and subdued by law (the title of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" captures this point nicely, though I don't agree with all of Diamond's arguments). Would you judge one Native American tribe similarly should they commit genocide upon another tribe and take their lands? Based on your comments here, I suspect no, and I also suspect such is still considered morally wrong but less morally wrong than Western expansion through kinetic force.
Racist laws are morally wrong and must be eschewed. There is no doubt that Native Americans were eventually subdued by such laws, but it took decades of fighting for Native Americans to reach their low point. So, I submit to you a serious question to ponder: if two warring entities are technological equals, is their fighting "better" in some sense?
The Jeffersonian idea was to create a nation of self-sufficient yeoman farmers (they thought slavery would go away over time due to its heavy tobacco emphasis that was depleting the soil). The industrial revolution, the cotton gin, and other world historical factors made this vision (which was a vision of a faction, not the entire elite) implausible.
They wanted to do this to relieve popular pressure from below by creating "responsible" landowners that had a stake in the system. The landowners would continue to be white and male, but with an expansion of who gets to participate. The American system repeatedly does this under stress. A system that was actually liberatoratory would work in the interest of the people, not simply respond to threats.
> The landowners would continue to be white and male, but with an expansion of who gets to participate.
I also don't think this is quite right, either. There were black landowners, specifically in virginia, but other states too like maryland and louisiana, many of whom were yeoman farmers, and even a few who owned slaves, and were successful petitioners to suits heard at the house of burgesses, until the late 18th-century, but eventually it just became too convenient to be lazy and label "black == slave".
You could be a black landowner in connecticut and vote until 1814, well after the constitution was passed. It's kind of a common narrative that the US was born in racism, but I think it was more "the US did not know what to do with the issue of race and grew into racism" which is scarier, if you ask me.
correction: until the early 18th century, which is when the black codes were passed in Virginia. However, several other states allowed free blacks to vote around the time of the constitution.
